I am starting a new website that consists of gamers submitting their reviews on ANY game (ANY platform) they wish. The idea is to get players to send their reviews via E-MAIL and they will eventually be posted as the main review on the actual site along with our own originals (if they happen to be better than our original reviews then hell, we'll post theirs instead). The idea is one review per game only. If we have multiple review on the same game, then we make collaborative reviews in which we say, for example, "Halo 4's new armor upgrades/perks provide for a great change in gameplay, however according to _____ ______ they do not seem to 'make a considerable difference in gameplay.'"

My question is: do you think the idea of one review per game can work? And is there any other feautures you think I could use in order to improve our credibility?

The website has not been published yet. The domain will be firstplayersays.com but you can e-mail me at firstplayersays@gmail.com to have your review posted on the main site (since we just started development most submissions will end up on the website as full reviews.

I will appreciate any criticism you guys have to offer since I hear you guys are the best! Thank you guys and I expect to hear from y'all!!

One review per game is bad, you should allow multiple reviews (a la metacritic, show your review, and then list reviews by users from platforms plus a score or whatever you're using). Using a single review is what people will perceive to be bias, and by "including" aspects of what other people's reviews say, you're watering down their opinion, and only going to create more work for yourself reading countless reviews and trying to include everybody's opinion.
The website sounds like a good idea, i dont like metacritic, as the companies that review seperate to the users are heavily biased, and dont feature much of an opinion into one article. Who's going to decide what opinions feature in that article?
You'll get my subscription and support if and when it goes up, but certainly not if you only post one review for a game played by a guy on xbox with the occassional quote saying "xxx 360 no scope Xxx said this wepaon in teh sucks, but jimbob1902 said its kinda cool but jamesdean92 said this is better".

You make a very good point. I had another idea in mind in which I would read review and simply determine whether they were negative or positive reviews torwards that particular game. This way gamers could see why people hate it an why people love (whether it be legitimate or not would be our job to determine...like you said we don't want "haters" bashing popular titles and fanboys praising games for the wrong reason). We could still have our own original reviews and sub-pages that display the reviews that we consider to be positive or negative. Perhaps we could even have users rate the reviews they sought most helpful.

I have to agree with RCoon that using a single review would seem bias. Maybe separate reviews from pros and gamers.

Do your site review of a specific game; say you give it a 8/10 review, for example, and also give a quick blurb from other major game reviewers such as PC Gamer. Show what they gave the game such as a 8.5/10.

Then on a separate panel show your user reviews and just give quick blurbs from their reviews and what each scored the game at.

Kind of a good example of this form is how Steam separates the "pro" reviewers and the "gamer" reviewers. Seems to work pretty good.